Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Author
Topic: Will the new president make a difference for us? (Read 11816 times)

I dont know what Barack's and Hilary's views are on hiv/aids topic but, whoever wins.. do you think there is going to be a difference as far as treating and researching hiv goes? Maybe more money will be invested or maybe even less? And i've read rumors saying Barack is homophobic, is this true? Means hes not gonna do a anything about hiv/aids.. he wil probably see it as something we deserve. Please slap me and tell me its not true. Im worried lol.

BARACK OBAMA: FIGHTING HIV/AIDS WORLDWIDE “We are all sick because of AIDS - and we are all tested by this crisis. It is a test not only of our willingness to respond, but of our ability to look past the artificial divisions and debates that have often shaped that response. When you go to places like Africa and you see this problem up close, you realize that it's not a question of either treatment or prevention – or even what kind of prevention – it is all of the above. It is not an issue of either science or values – it is both. Yes, there must be more money spent on this disease. But there must also be a change in hearts and minds, in cultures and attitudes. Neither philanthropist nor scientist, neither government nor church, can solve this problem on their own - AIDS must be an all-hands-on-deck effort.” [Barack Obama, World AIDS Day Speech, Lake Forest, CA, 12/1/06] BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO COMBAT GLOBAL HIV/AIDS There are 40 million people across the planet infected with HIV/AIDS, including more than 1 million people in the U.S., with nearly 8,000 people dying every day of AIDS. Barack Obama believes that we must do more to fight the global HIV/AIDS pandemic, as well as malaria and tuberculosis. In 2006, Obama traveled to Kenya and, along with his wife Michelle, took an HIV/AIDS test to encourage African men and women to be tested for the disease. Obama believes in working across party lines to combat this epidemic and joined Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) at a large California evangelical church to promote greater investment in the global AIDS battle. As president, Obama will continue to be a global leader in the fight against AIDS. HIV/AIDS IN AMERICA Develop a National HIV/AIDS Strategy: Obama has pledged that, in the first year of his presidency, he will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care, and reduce HIV-related health disparities. His strategy will include measurable goals, timelines, and accountability mechanisms. Fix the Nation’s Health Care System: 47 million Americans are uninsured in this country. Barack Obama is committed to signing universal health care legislation by the end of his first term in office that ensures all Americans have high-quality, affordable health care coverage. Obama’s plan will save a typical American family up to $2,500 every year on medical expenditures by providing affordable, comprehensive and portable health coverage for every American; modernizing the U.S. health care system to contain spiraling health care costs and improve the quality of patient care; and promoting prevention and strengthening public health to prevent disease and protect against natural and man-made disasters. His health plan will ensure that people living with HIV have access to lifesaving treatment and care. Fight Disparities: HIV has hit some communities harder than others. For example, while African-Americans make up 13 percent of the U.S. population, they make up 49 percent of new HIV/AIDS cases. AIDS is the leading cause of death in African-American women aged 25-34, and the third leading cause of death in African-American men in the same age group. In 2005, 64 percent of women living with HIV/AIDS were black. Obama will tackle the root causes of health disparities by addressing differences in access to health coverage and promoting prevention and public health, both of which play a major role in addressing disparities. He will also challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care through quality measurement and reporting, implementation of effective interventions such as patient navigation programs and diversification of the health workforce. Improve Quality of Life for Those Living with HIV/AIDS: Obama is a strong supporter of the Ryan White Care Act (RWCA), which provides critical access to life-saving treatment and care for over half a million lowincome Americans with HIV/AIDS. The RWCA is one of the largest sources of federal funds for primary health care and support services for patients with HIV/AIDS. The bill was named after Ryan White, an Indiana teenager whose courageous struggle with HIV/AIDS helped educate the nation. Throughout the reauthorization process of the RWCA, Obama worked closely with RWCA service providers, the Chicago Department ofPublic Health, and the Illinois Department of Public Health to analyze and find ways to improve the program for Illinois and for the nation. Obama will continue to protect the multifaceted care upon which RWCA beneficiaries depend. Assure Adequate and Safe Housing for Those Living With HIV: Obama supports increased funding for Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA) and other pertinent housing programs. These programs aim to assure that adequate and safe housing is available for all disabled and low-income people with HIV/AIDS in the U.S. Expand Funding for Research: Barack Obama will expand funding for research, especially for prevention options including a vaccine and microbicides. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections. Obama led an effort with Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and others to introduce the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. Promote AIDS Prevention: In addition to assuring access to treatment, Obama believes we need to increase the focus on preventing new infections. We cannot keep pace with treatment needs if we don’t also focus on prevention. This means pursuing a strategy that relies on sound science and builds on what works. Obama supports comprehensive sex education that is age-appropriate. He supports increasing federal appropriations for science-based HIV prevention programs. Obama supports the JUSTICE Act, which would prevent transmission of HIV within the incarcerated population. He also supports legislation that would lift the ban on federal funding for needle exchange as a strategy to reduce HIV transmission among injection drug users and their partners and children. Bring Medicaid Coverage to Low-Income, HIV-Positive Americans: Obama is a co-sponsor of the Early Treatment of HIV Act, which would provide Medicaid coverage to more low-income, HIV-positive Americans. GLOBAL HIV/AIDS Reauthorize and Revise PEPFAR: The U.S. has dramatically increased funding for global HIV and AIDS programs through the President’s Emergency Program for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), but the program has faced controversy. Obama believes that our first priority should be to reauthorize PEPFAR when it expires in 2008 and rewrite much of the bill to allow best practices – not ideology – to drive funding for HIV/AIDS programs. In addition, Obama supports adding an additional $1 billion a year in new money over the next five years to strengthen and expand the program to Southeast Asia, India, and Eastern Europe, where the pandemic is expanding. Increase Investments for HIV Treatment: Barack Obama is committed to increasing U.S. investments in the capacity building needed to ensure that poor countries are able to develop the health care infrastructure necessary to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, promote basic health care, reduce the spread of malaria and TB, and prevent and, if necessary, contain the spread of avian flu and other pandemics. Increase Contribution to the Global Fund: Obama supports increasing U.S. contributions to the Global Fund for AIDS, malaria, and TB so that our assistance is coordinated with aid provided by other governments and private donors and so that the burden on poor countries is reduced. Provide Access Through Trade: Barack Obama believes that people in developing countries living with HIV/AIDS should have access to safe, affordable generic drugs to treat HIV/AIDS. He will break the stranglehold that a few big drug and insurance companies have on these life-saving drugs. Obama supports the rights of sovereign nations to access quality-assured, low-cost generic medication to meet their pressing public health needs under the WTO’s Declaration on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). He also supports the adoption of humanitarian licensing policies that ensure medications developed with U.S. taxpayer dollars are available off-patent in developing countries. Achieve the Millennium Development Goals: As president, Barack Obama will double U.S. foreign assistance from $25 billion per year to $50 billion per year to ensure the U.S. does its share to meet the Millennium Development Goals, including halving the number of people who die of tuberculosis and/or are affected by malaria. In 2005, Obama cosponsored the International Cooperation to Meet the Millennium Development Goals Act. Barack Obama will target this new spending toward strategic goals, including helping the world’s weakest states to build healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets, and generate wealth. He will also help weak states to fight terrorism, halt the spread of deadly weapons, and build the health care infrastructure needed to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS as well as detect and contain outbreaks of avian influenza. Obama will dedicate as much funding to HIV/AIDS as possible – without cutting into other critical foreign assistance programs – to ensure a comprehensive fight against this global pandemic. Reduce Debt of Developing Nations: Developing nations are amassing tremendous amounts of foreign debt that limit their economic development and make investments in public health, education, and infrastructure extremely difficult. Debt in Sub-Saharan Africa stands at $235 billion, 44 percent of the region’s gross domestic product and an increase of 33 percent since 1990. Obama would work with other developed nations and multilateral institutions to cancel remaining onerous debt while pushing reforms to keep developing nations from slipping into fiscal ruin. Obama also would better coordinate trade and development policies to use the full range of America’s economic power to help developing nations reap the benefits of the global trading system. Obama cosponsored the Multilateral Debt Relief Act of 2005 to provide multilateral debt relief to Heavily Indebted Poor Countries.

Well sorry. No matter if there is a space inbetween or not the post still will read the same and the information inside of the post is more important than me pressing the enter button.

Also Hillary Clinton supports the STOPAIDS Bill that hasn't been passed yet but will give 50 Billion dollars to the fight against HIV/AIDS Globally. Obama has his own plan which doesn't place a "DOLLAR AMOUNT" on the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Well sorry. No matter if there is a space inbetween or not the post still will read the same and the information inside of the post is more important than me pressing the enter button.

Hi Bruce,

I really don't think Matty was trying to be tiresome , but the thing is, when there is a huge block of text with no breaks for paragraphs, it makes what's posted EXCEEDINGLY difficult to read. I know I couldn't read your first post past the first couple sentences. It all starts to blur together.

Nobody's trying to get at you, but it IS really dificult to read huge blocks of text. It's well worth hitting the "enter" button now and then to break it up a bit - and more people will read what you've posted and respond.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

HERE YOU GO GALS AND GUYS. Give me an hour and it will be in three different translations for those who can't read English. Thats how important this info is.

BARACK OBAMA: FIGHTING HIV/AIDS WORLDWIDE “We are all sick because of AIDS - and we are all tested by this crisis. It is a test not only of our willingness to respond, but of our ability to look past the artificial divisions and debates that have often shaped that response. When you go to places like Africa and you see this problem up close, you realize that it's not a question of either treatment or prevention – or even what kind of prevention – it is all of the above. It is not an issue of either science or values – it is both. Yes, there must be more money spent on this disease. But there must also be a change in hearts and minds, in cultures and attitudes. Neither philanthropist nor scientist, neither government nor church, can solve this problem on their own - AIDS must be an all-hands-on-deck effort.” [Barack Obama, World AIDS Day Speech, Lake Forest, CA, 12/1/06]

BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO COMBAT GLOBAL HIV/AIDS There are 40 million people across the planet infected with HIV/AIDS, including more than 1 million people in the U.S., with nearly 8,000 people dying every day of AIDS. Barack Obama believes that we must do more to fight the global HIV/AIDS pandemic, as well as malaria and tuberculosis. In 2006, Obama traveled to Kenya and, along with his wife Michelle, took an HIV/AIDS test to encourage African men and women to be tested for the disease. Obama believes in working across party lines to combat this epidemic and joined Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) at a large California evangelical church to promote greater investment in the global AIDS battle. As president, Obama will continue to be a global leader in the fight against AIDS.

HIV/AIDS IN AMERICA Develop a National HIV/AIDS Strategy: Obama has pledged that, in the first year of his presidency, he will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care, and reduce HIV-related health disparities. His strategy will include measurable goals, timelines, and accountability mechanisms. Fix the Nation’s Health Care System: 47 million Americans are uninsured in this country. Barack Obama is committed to signing universal health care legislation by the end of his first term in office that ensures all Americans have high-quality, affordable health care coverage. Obama’s plan will save a typical American family up to $2,500 every year on medical expenditures by providing affordable, comprehensive and portable health coverage for every American; modernizing the U.S. health care system to contain spiraling health care costs and improve the quality of patient care; and promoting prevention and strengthening public health to prevent disease and protect against natural and man-made disasters. His health plan will ensure that people living with HIV have access to lifesaving treatment and care.

Fight Disparities: HIV has hit some communities harder than others. For example, while African-Americans make up 13 percent of the U.S. population, they make up 49 percent of new HIV/AIDS cases. AIDS is the leading cause of death in African-American women aged 25-34, and the third leading cause of death in African-American men in the same age group. In 2005, 64 percent of women living with HIV/AIDS were black. Obama will tackle the root causes of health disparities by addressing differences in access to health coverage and promoting prevention and public health, both of which play a major role in addressing disparities. He will also challenge the medical system to eliminate inequities in health care through quality measurement and reporting, implementation of effective interventions such as patient navigation programs and diversification of the health workforce.

Improve Quality of Life for Those Living with HIV/AIDS: Obama is a strong supporter of the Ryan White Care Act (RWCA), which provides critical access to life-saving treatment and care for over half a million lowincome Americans with HIV/AIDS. The RWCA is one of the largest sources of federal funds for primary health care and support services for patients with HIV/AIDS. The bill was named after Ryan White, an Indiana teenager whose courageous struggle with HIV/AIDS helped educate the nation. Throughout the reauthorization process of the RWCA, Obama worked closely with RWCA service providers, the Chicago Department ofPublic Health, and the Illinois Department of Public Health to analyze and find ways to improve the program for Illinois and for the nation. Obama will continue to protect the multifaceted care upon which RWCA beneficiaries depend.

Assure Adequate and Safe Housing for Those Living With HIV: Obama supports increased funding for Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA) and other pertinent housing programs. These programs aim to assure that adequate and safe housing is available for all disabled and low-income people with HIV/AIDS in the U.S. Expand Funding for Research: Barack Obama will expand funding for research, especially for prevention options including a vaccine and microbicides. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections. Obama led an effort with Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and others to introduce the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses.

Promote AIDS Prevention: In addition to assuring access to treatment, Obama believes we need to increase the focus on preventing new infections. We cannot keep pace with treatment needs if we don’t also focus on prevention. This means pursuing a strategy that relies on sound science and builds on what works. Obama supports comprehensive sex education that is age-appropriate. He supports increasing federal appropriations for science-based HIV prevention programs.

Obama supports the JUSTICE Act, which would prevent transmission of HIV within the incarcerated population. He also supports legislation that would lift the ban on federal funding for needle exchange as a strategy to reduce HIV transmission among injection drug users and their partners and children. Bring Medicaid Coverage to Low-Income, HIV-Positive Americans: Obama is a co-sponsor of the Early Treatment of HIV Act, which would provide Medicaid coverage to more low-income, HIV-positive Americans.

GLOBAL HIV/AIDS Reauthorize and Revise PEPFAR: The U.S. has dramatically increased funding for global HIV and AIDS programs through the President’s Emergency Program for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), but the program has faced controversy. Obama believes that our first priority should be to reauthorize PEPFAR when it expires in 2008 and rewrite much of the bill to allow best practices – not ideology – to drive funding for HIV/AIDS programs. In addition, Obama supports adding an additional $1 billion a year in new money over the next five years to strengthen and expand the program to Southeast Asia, India, and Eastern Europe, where the pandemic is expanding. Increase Investments for HIV Treatment: Barack Obama is committed to increasing U.S. investments in the capacity building needed to ensure that poor countries are able to develop the health care infrastructure necessary to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, promote basic health care, reduce the spread of malaria and TB, and prevent and, if necessary, contain the spread of avian flu and other pandemics.

Increase Contribution to the Global Fund: Obama supports increasing U.S. contributions to the Global Fund for AIDS, malaria, and TB so that our assistance is coordinated with aid provided by other governments and private donors and so that the burden on poor countries is reduced.

Provide Access Through Trade: Barack Obama believes that people in developing countries living with HIV/AIDS should have access to safe, affordable generic drugs to treat HIV/AIDS. He will break the stranglehold that a few big drug and insurance companies have on these life-saving drugs. Obama supports the rights of sovereign nations to access quality-assured, low-cost generic medication to meet their pressing public health needs under the WTO’s Declaration on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). He also supports the adoption of humanitarian licensing policies that ensure medications developed with U.S. taxpayer dollars are available off-patent in developing countries. Achieve the Millennium Development Goals: As president, Barack Obama will double U.S. foreign assistance from $25 billion per year to $50 billion per year to ensure the U.S. does its share to meet the Millennium Development Goals, including halving the number of people who die of tuberculosis and/or are affected by malaria.

In 2005, Obama cosponsored the International Cooperation to Meet the Millennium Development Goals Act. Barack Obama will target this new spending toward strategic goals, including helping the world’s weakest states to build healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets, and generate wealth. He will also help weak states to fight terrorism, halt the spread of deadly weapons, and build the health care infrastructure needed to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS as well as detect and contain outbreaks of avian influenza. Obama will dedicate as much funding to HIV/AIDS as possible – without cutting into other critical foreign assistance programs – to ensure a comprehensive fight against this global pandemic.

Reduce Debt of Developing Nations: Developing nations are amassing tremendous amounts of foreign debt that limit their economic development and make investments in public health, education, and infrastructure extremely difficult. Debt in Sub-Saharan Africa stands at $235 billion, 44 percent of the region’s gross domestic product and an increase of 33 percent since 1990. Obama would work with other developed nations and multilateral institutions to cancel remaining onerous debt while pushing reforms to keep developing nations from slipping into fiscal ruin. Obama also would better coordinate trade and development policies to use the full range of America’s economic power to help developing nations reap the benefits of the global trading system. Obama cosponsored the Multilateral Debt Relief Act of 2005 to provide multilateral debt relief to Heavily Indebted Poor Countries.

Thank you Bruce, now that I can read what you've posted, I see it is very good, comforting information indeed. Where did you get that from, can you provide a link please?

If you were being serious as opposed to facetious when you said you were going to translate what you've posted, may I suggest you do a Spanish translation first and post it in the Spanish Living forum? There are many Spanish speakers in the States who vote.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Unfortunately the president doesn't control the purse strings. We all saw what happened to President Clinton's universal healthcare plan when he was elected. We don't fix that and I'm afraid HIV funding will continue at or about the same level that exists today.

We better get a handle on prevention. Practically speaking there is just not enough money to go around to cover the continuing rates of infection in the United States. Maybe that should be the advertisng angle because the newly infected without insurance don't realize what awaits them. When the realize it, it's a bit late.

And i've read rumors saying Barack is homophobic, is this true? Means hes not gonna do a anything about hiv/aids.. he wil probably see it as something we deserve. Please slap me and tell me its not true. Im worried lol.

Wow! I guess there's now a rumor floating that Obama is secretly against every identifiable minority. The Clinton camp and the rabid conservatives have done a good job at such things. The more important thing for me is to not let McCain into The White House. He may have a closeted Gay HIV+ chief of staff, but that seems very reminiscent of Roy Cohn empowering evil and injustice. Despite his rhetoric, McCain does represent Shrub's third term and a demonstrable threat to generations to come, even if the House and Senate become increasingly Democratic--that's where our hope for better funding lies.

AMEN about John McCain. You think the fight is hard now. Let McCain get in that office and we will be in a world of trouble. I lost all respect him after his opposal to the new and updated GI Bill. He wants us to be over there for 100 years but yet he doesn't want to update their benefits. I could just imagine what will happen with the Ryan White Funds when he gets into office.

I think a Democrat will mean slightly more funding for research and medical assistance programs. It is true that Congress provides funding, and we're virtually gauranteed a Democratic congress, if we are unfortunate enough to get a McCain administration he would probably veto most funding increases.

AMEN about John McCain. You think the fight is hard now. Let McCain get in that office and we will be in a world of trouble. I lost all respect him after his opposal to the new and updated GI Bill. He wants us to be over there for 100 years but yet he doesn't want to update their benefits. I could just imagine what will happen with the Ryan White Funds when he gets into office.

I am actually pretty conservative, but I was very disappointed with McCain's refusal to update Veteran benefits, what with my being a Vet. My benefits are pretty good, better than most insurance, however; there are some things are missing (dental and Vision, even if they made me pay for it at a discounted rate would be better for me and my brethren)

I do have an issue with all the candidates as a whole, I don't think any of them will do what they claim, or would be able to. For one thing, Politicians will say anything to get into office, and we know they lie, cheat and steal to do it.

Second and most important is the issue of the Congress and Senate. These idiots need to be removed and we need to start fresh. Put term limits on them, this career politician thing is out of hand. And, since when do employees get to give themselves a pay raise? We don't get to do that (unless you are self-employed) these morons work for us, WE should be deciding if they deserve to get a rise in pay.

Third, these "candidates" are beholden to their financial backers. They are bought and paid for plain and simple. They are whores. Very high priced whores.

All of this disappoints considering that I served my country for people's freedoms and they are being taken away just to benefit the CEO's pocketbooks and the pockets of the politicians, the "golden umbrella" as it's called, (one for the record, I would like to shove up their a@@ and then open it) I am all about people making the best for their lives, I do take issue with doing off the backs of others without benefit to them other than to simply survive.

I do hope that more funding will be more funding to fight HIV/AIDS. It is a dreadful disease, and strikes fear into the hearts of everyone it touches. We can live long productive lives even with the disease, but we shouldn't have to. Our scientists can clone animals and what have you, and all other sorts of things can be done, but the haven't figured out how to cure this disease?

I just don't think any of the three possible candidates can even do anything. They are like the Queen, simply a figure head. Gone are the days of the president actually taking control, and being able to work with the congress and senate. The fact is, the lines have been blurred, lines between government, it's role, the public's role, and corporate america.

Say what you will about the 50's but back then, there was a VERY large middle class, fewer taxes, people were actually self-sufficient, and there was only the need for one member of the household to work. Granted there was great stigma about LGBT, but I am speaking strictly about a financial aspect. If we had that aspect today, and the more openness of LGBT, and several other social openness, I think we would be so much better off. (utopian I know) This just a partial element of my take on this, but much of how I look at it anyway.

Hmm. I do agree and disaagree with you Dusty. All three, well two after Tuesday, are NOT the same. Of course the President says anything to get elected, thats life, but looking just soley at AGENDAS and plans for HIV/AIDS prevention and help, Barack Obama stands eons about the rest. John McCain would cut HIV/AIDS funding just to support the war. LOL. I do understand we need a new Congress but the first page we need to turn is getting a NEW President with NEW ideas. The old ones have ran their course and its time for CHANGE no matter how you look at it.

Only time will tell how the new President might make a difference for us. All the candidates, right now, have proposals that basically contain lots of "Motherhood and Apple Pie", but no real meat. That is, I know, the campaign world -- what they do will be what happens in the future and I try to avoid predicting the future. I am definitely in agreement that this country can't survive a 3rd term of Bush -- McCain must be beaten.

A quick comment about partisanship and politicians inability to work together today. At the end of the day, we have ourselves to blame for this. Just look at some of the more political threads in these forums..... people are NOT looking for compromise. We live in a world where the overriding position is, "I'm right, you are wrong -- plus you are an evil monster for even thinking that way." Gone are the days where people tried to gain an understanding of the other side's views. Perhaps seeing something slightly new or, at least, better understanding why they believe what they believe, which can help you to better reach out and craft a solution that might work (sometimes getting 80% of what you want is better than being "principled" and getting nothing -- this isn't always true, but sometimes it is).

We have the ability to throw out the Congress -- it is called the voting booth. In reality, many people say "throw the bums out -- except for MY bum". Why? because MY bum brings home the bacon. We may hate pork in principle, but we love getting what WE get.

Say what you will about the 50's but back then, there was a VERY large middle class, fewer taxes, people were actually self-sufficient, and there was only the need for one member of the household to work.

That's because the 1950s were the heyday of liberalism, dusty - nearly every adult male was in a union and thus received a decent living wage of around $35-$50/hour in todays terms, and taxes were MUCH higher on the rich: around 70%. Now the rich get away with something ridiculous like 30% and 'capital gains' (rich people income) are taxed at a lower rate than normal wages - no wonder we have no money for health care.

That's because the 1950s were the heyday of liberalism, dusty - nearly every adult male was in a union and thus received a decent living wage of around $35-$50/hour in todays terms, and taxes were MUCH higher on the rich: around 70%. Now the rich get away with something ridiculous like 30% and 'capital gains' (rich people income) are taxed at a lower rate than normal wages - no wonder we have no money for health care.

While the US Tax Code definitely needs to be changed, I don't think taking close to 3/4 of someone's income, simply because they are successful, is the answer. What does one consider as "rich"? I suspect it is definitely in the eye of the beholder.Believe me, I pay my fair share of taxes -- Should I pay less?? Absolutely not -- I do feel an obligation to help people who need help. Should I pay more?? Certainly not a doubling of what I pay now, which is what your "nostalgic" look back seems to imply.

Also, Capital Gains are not limited to "rich people". This is one more way we are perpetuating the us vs. them problem that creates logjams in this country.

Bocker, I'd rather not get drawn into general political debate, but let me just point out that the working class of Europe thinks in terms of 'us vs. them', and it has served them well - they have universal government provided health care, and people with hiv and aids are provided for, unlike in the benighted USA.

Bocker, I'd rather not get drawn into general political debate, but let me just point out that the working class of Europe thinks in terms of 'us vs. them', and it has served them well - they have universal government provided health care, and people with hiv and aids are provided for, unlike in the benighted USA.

You needn't get drawn into a general political debate -- I was merely responding to your post on the wonderful 1950's where the "rich" paid 70% of their income in taxes. I, for one, do not wish to have that much of my income stolen from me (although, I don't consider myself "rich", I'm sure others would). We can solve the health care issue without going to that extreme, if we had the political will -- afterall, I do believe that labor unions would fight it.

I agree that the US should provide health care - I am in no way defending our way of financing health care.

However, us vs them is rarely a good thing -- it implies winners and losers -- you yourself have just pointed out that it served "the working class of Europe" well. Just where would the "working class" work if that was all that existed??

Wow...I don't wanna jump to conclusions but you seem more intrested in why I didn't put a space between a paragraph then the information in the post. Tells me alot about your priorities.

Bruce/Torey: Don't take MtD's bait! Spare us all the result (tit for tat). But while Torey (and I) are supporting Obama let me share this video, "Young Hillary Clinton" regarding the internecine war among the Democrats (FYI: It might be fair, but it's NOT unbiased). The insured in the US have just as many problems (mostly different problems) with healthcare as the uninsured. Everybody is screwed, but in different ways. in the US the answer is single-payer, single-standard universal healthcare (the insurers? RIP). No candidates would have a chance in hell of being elected for advocating such a plan. A health plan that doesn't help people like us with chronic illness is no plan at all. I expect to be protesting against my new President's administration some day for not going far enough in improving healthcare. Meanwhile, enjoy this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAu39I5QOUc

I still stick to my guns on the fact that no matter WHO gets into the white house, nothing will change, other than get worse. Unless you get rid of the weeds the garden can't grow. EVERY stinking moronic member of the house and senate needs to be removed and new people brought in. I will also go further and say we need to go back to what the original intent of "government by the people, of the people and for the people" (not sure of the exact order) That was, that people would go and serve a term and come back home, then it was someone else's turn. This thing were they spend FAR too much money to get elected would wipe out the national debt in a heartbeat. I am tired of these brain dead idiots spending my hard earned money on B.S. and lining their pockets with it. Not one can lead by example. Also, we need to limit the number of lawyers who are in seated positions. Lawyers can only screw things up, especially in large numbers. A few lawyers would only be needed to ensure the law is valid. I am tired of these guys (and gals) not looking out for OUR interests. I am NOT getting my money's worth as an employer. When the mob has more respect than the house and senate, there is a problem. At least with the mob you know what you are getting into.

I also can't vote for someone just because his/her stand on HIV/AIDS. Even though this is now a very important issue in my life now. I was never concerned that much about it before simply because I was not affected by it. I really never knew anyone with HIV/AIDS prior to my own diagnosis. Now, I have to pay any possible consequences for not paying attention sooner. That being said, I still will not vote for someone simply on this issue. I have to look at everything. I am still trying to figure out who to vote for. Unfortunately no one on the ticket is worth anything no matter what they tell us. Integrity went out the window years ago.

It's rather cheering to see how people of such evidently disparate political views are coalescing around the idea that the US health care system is in need of fundamental reform. You see it from the McCain folks, from the fiscal conservatives concerned about entitlements, and from the left with concerns over the disparity in access and outcomes. Then there's the "good governance" folks who look at the percent of gross domestic product that we spend (about 50% higher than other western countries) and the fact that satisfaction -- even among those who have good coverage -- is not as high. AARP has put together a coalition of union and business leadership pushing for significant reform

That's great!

Not so sure about some of the supporting "facts" that have been advanced in this thread to support the argument though:

The 1950's (AKA the Eisenhower years) represented the heyday of American liberalism

The original intent of government "of the people. by the people, for the people" meant people would serve one term and go home, like George Washington. It should be noted that George Washington served two (2) terms. Had he chosen to stand for a third term he would have died in office. . . But perhaps we should choose another early American politician, say James Madison, author of the Federalist papers. He served four (4) terms in Congress, eight years as Secretary of State and two terms (8 years) as President before going home. Or perhaps the most famous user of the phrase, Abraham Lincoln, successively member of the Illinois House, the House of Representatives, the Senate and elected to two terms as President -- he who was not allowed to return home.

I will also go further and say we need to go back to what the original intent of "government by the people, of the people and for the people"

Oh you mean back to when only white male landowners were allowed to vote.

Hey Dachschund, I think you need to read the whole statement I made and not put words in my mouth. re-read that segment, and what I explained it meant, not what you thought it meant. I find it amazing that people refuse to read what is written and only take a part of a statement in order to make some point, and I am still not sure what that was, because it has really nothing to do with what I said, had the whole thing been examined and then stated on.

It's rather cheering to see how people of such evidently disparate political views are coalescing around the idea that the US health care system is in need of fundamental reform. You see it from the McCain folks, from the fiscal conservatives concerned about entitlements, and from the left with concerns over the disparity in access and outcomes. Then there's the "good governance" folks who look at the percent of gross domestic product that we spend (about 50% higher than other western countries) and the fact that satisfaction -- even among those who have good coverage -- is not as high. AARP has put together a coalition of union and business leadership pushing for significant reform

That's great!

Not so sure about some of the supporting "facts" that have been advanced in this thread to support the argument though:

.

The 1950's (AKA the Eisenhower years) represented the heyday of American liberalism

The original intent of government "of the people. by the people, for the people" meant people would serve one term and go home, like George Washington. It should be noted that George Washington served two (2) terms. Had he chosen to stand for a third term he would have died in office. . . But perhaps we should choose another early American politician, say James Madison, author of the Federalist papers. He served four (4) terms in Congress, eight years as Secretary of State and two terms (8 years) as President before going home. Or perhaps the most famous user of the phrase, Abraham Lincoln, successively member of the Illinois House, the House of Representatives, the Senate and elected to two terms as President -- he who was not allowed to return home.

Everyone gets their own opinion, but not their own facts.

And here again... I was speaking about the congress and senate not the president, that office already has term limits, I want to slap term limits on the former due to the fact that they don't have it, and they abuse that fact. I spoke of the original intent, intent that was not followed but sure as hell needs to be. [/list]

Hey Dachschund, I think you need to read the whole statement I made and not put words in my mouth. re-read that segment, and what I explained it meant, not what you thought it meant. I find it amazing that people refuse to read what is written and only take a part of a statement in order to make some point, and I am still not sure what that was, because it has really nothing to do with what I said, had the whole thing been examined and then stated on.

edited for grammar

Read (painfully) your whole 'opinion' and unfortunately for you our history has been recorded. You fail to mention we've amended our constitution over the years to correct the mistakes of our founding fathers. The rest of your over- simplified, incoherent, generalisations really don't require a response. However, I defend your right to post them and I reserve my right to respond.

The 1950's (AKA the Eisenhower years) represented the heyday of American liberalism

The 50's were a very liberal period - the New Deal and 'Big Government' were almost universally accepted, unionization of the work force was near its height, and Ike Eisenhower was more liberal than any of the so-called 'Democrats' we've had since LBJ.

Read (painfully) your whole 'opinion' and unfortunately for you our history has been recorded. You fail to mention we've amended our constitution over the years to correct the mistakes of our founding fathers. The rest of your over- simplified, incoherent, generalisations really don't require a response. However, I defend your right to post them and I reserve my right to respond.

ps Sam insists that I tell you there is only one c in Dachshund.

Presuming you are at least somewhat educated, I didn't think it would be necessary to mention that the constitution was amended over the years, anyone who actually took history in school would have known that, my comments are hardly incoherent. As for oversimplified, the problem with our government today is they make it far more difficult than it needs to be. Just take a look at the tax code. I also did not say to read the whole post, just THAT statement and it's intent. You presumed the rest, btw the founding fathers knew that things in this country would change and so there were allowances for making changes to accommodate these changes. My overall comment for the posts was that no matter who takes the office of president, nothing will change while the sitting house and senate who have corrupted our government over the years to meet THEIR own ends and NOT to the benefit of the people, have been removed and eliminate these self-indulgent means that they have created for themselves.

I too defend your right to say what you will, but I think you or anyone should read the whole of a statement to get it's meaning and not read into it something that simply is not there. This was all I was saying. I would not expect you or anyone to simply agree with anything that I may say, just as I would not simply agree with anything you might say, not to say that there would not be things that we would agree on, however; I think that before comments are made, reading and understanding what was said should be taken into account. Things in our country are a mess, if that was not the case, our political climate would not be as angry as it seems to be even with candidates who are presumably on the same side. If this were not the case, none of us would not have felt the need to comment on this thread.

Sorry dude but I read you loud and clear. Your oversimplified solutions are to return to the fifties, ban lawyers from any elected office (last time I checked that was against the law) and kick every legally (except Bush) elected official out of office. It's silly, not thought out solutions that are really not worth debating. By the way you do know politics were much tougher back in the day? They use to fight duels and shit. Anywho, have good day in Ozzie and Harrietville.

In answer to the question posed, a new President will make a difference.

Sorry dude but I read you loud and clear. Your oversimplified solutions are to return to the fifties, ban lawyers from any elected office (last time I checked that was against the law) and kick every legally (except Bush) elected official out of office. It's silly, not thought out solutions that are really not worth debating. By the way you do know politics were much tougher back in the day? They use to fight duels and shit. Anywho, have good day in Ozzie and Harrietville.

In answer to the question posed, a new President will make a difference.

In response to the question posed, as long as the dumbshits who currently run the house and the senate continue to sit and abuse our system of government, a new president WILL NOT make a difference. But you are entitled to your opinion on that one. I also did not say to ban lawyers, I said limit them.(how to do that would be difficult, but necessary) I also never said to kick out elected officials, I said we need to start fresh (to you that might mean the same thing but I am referring to the voters making a concerted change to eliminate all incumbents in the next election, hey look a SIMPLE solution to a big problem!!). The current climate of politics means that offices are bought and paid for by corporate america and not by the people who by the way allow corporate america to survive. Not everything about the 50's was bad, and not everything was good, just like today. I also never said anything about Bush, or that I even support him. Just because I am conservative, does not mean that I blindly support the republican party or it's members. Notice I stated that all the members of the house and senate need to be changed. I would be like a corporate take over, we simply change the executive staff. Simplified? yeah, maybe, but I think it is necessary due to the fact that so much corruption has happened and is happening. The political climate is such today that members of the house and senate don't even tell the truth about why they disagree anymore, they lie about what the other group is doing so that they can create hysteria among the voters to get their agenda going. These same people demand to be called "the Honorable" so and so. There is nothing honorable about them. If they acted with integrity and honor I might have a different opinion. As for the duels "and shit" not so sure that is a bad idea, would solve some problems with minimal tax expendature, hell, we could probably sell tickets and take all the proceeds and lower the national debt. Fact is, the house and the senate have taken an "us vs. them" attitude and therefore nothing gets done.

A disagreement about how to proceed is one thing, but simply not being willing to work towards a win/win solution to problems in this country because you only want what you want is not what we hired these people to do. This goes for both sides. Like I said, things are being made more difficult than they need to be. Not everything is easy, but it ain't that hard either.

As for the duels "and shit" not so sure that is a bad idea, would solve some problems with minimal tax expendature, hell, would could probably sell tickets and take all the proceeds and lower the national debt.

And here again... I was speaking about the congress and senate not the president, that office already has term limits, I want to slap term limits on the former due to the fact that they don't have it, and they abuse that fact. I spoke of the original intent, intent that was not followed but sure as hell needs to be. [/list]

DustyYou appear to be using "original intent" to defend a position that you like but cannot otherwise justify. But you also appear unable to cite to any documentation that term limits were the "original intent" of the framers. James Madison served 4 terms in Congress. As one of the authors of the federalist papers he is among the best known of the framers of the Constitution.

Perhaps you are unaware that Presidential term limits were only adopted in the 20th century and were not original to the Constitution?

In response to the question posed, as long as the dumbshits who currently run the house and the senate continue to sit and abuse our system of government, a new president WILL NOT make a difference. . . .The political climate is such today that members of the house and senate don't even tell the truth about why they disagree anymore, they lie about what the other group is doing so that they can create hysteria among the voters to get their agenda going.

The President has:- the authority (and responsibility) to propose the Budget to Congres- the authority over the military as the Commander in Chief - the ability to appoint (with Congressional oversight) the heads of all Government Departments- the ability to veto legislation- the ability to set regulatory agendas (within limits)- the authority and responsibility to appoint the senior members of the judiciary (with congressional oversight)- the bully pulpit including a weekly radio address, 24/7 press coverage and full coverage of major speechesBecause of all this political power, if you talk to any staffer on Capitol Hill, they are likely to tell you that Congress generally defers to the President's agenda except for the last years of a lame duck

It is difficult given the above to credibly assert that the President WILL NOT make a difference.

Responding to your other statement about the current viciousness of campaigns, well, most historians that I have read argue that modern campaigns are tamer than the past. For instance, here's an excerpt regarding newspaper coverage about Thomas Jefferson "With Jefferson as President, so warned one newspaper, "Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes."" (Boy, they don't make editorials like that anymore http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/jefferson/essays/biography/3 )

So perhaps you might give Clio a break until you've read some of her admirers, eh?

The 50's were a very liberal period - the New Deal and 'Big Government' were almost universally accepted, unionization of the work force was near its height, and Ike Eisenhower was more liberal than any of the so-called 'Democrats' we've had since LBJ.

Sorry milordJust seemed a little odd to label the 50's as the "heyday" when the 40's and 60's were seemingly so close at hand. But I agree that Eisenhower, and for that matter Nixon, were much more liberal than recent republicans. If Nixon had not been impeached the US would have had national health insurance and we wouldn't be having the same discussion here at all. (It was teed up on the agenda to move after ERISA went through -- but ERISA was the first bill signed by President Ford). Which should not be taken in any way as an endorsement of Tricky Dick -- just another example of how much more conservative the country has become.

To answer the original question as posed by the Op's subject line: I am not sure.

I think there are too many variables as far as technology and medicine right now to accurately predict which candidate will better serve us over the course of the next four years.

Frankly, I think the ability of science and the appetites of business (for patents and profits) beats any politician's outlook and/or bullet points as far as health care.

All that said, I consider McCain the least likely to look out for us in areas where it counts (social services, healthcare costs, compassion) while I think Hillary is the most likely to understand and appreciate our health care and social services issue.

But the best person on paper is not necessarily who will win.

I just watched all three of them give their speeches I can attest that I teared up for both Clinton and Obama and have only the best wishes for both, though frankly after Barak's speech, to me, the choice of who is most likely to speak for what is right in taking care of all Americans seems clear and that is Barak Obama.

I do think that means some sacrifices for all to a degree. He will have to balance racial identity along with sexual orientation; racism and misogyny, economic growth and safety nets; and finally healthcare and health choices.

The bottom line is that I think with Barak we have a candidate who is willing to tackle those issues PUBLICLY in the sense of making us all deal with our own personal values of which we consider of greater worth. I fear that the mirror image that he may force us all to look into as to our own hypocrisy of what we consider of concern is bound to embarrass us all, yet I hold out the smallest hope based on his incredible oratory skills (am I alone in noticing that he never used a teleprompter or looked at a written speech the whole time) will lead us through this difficult transition to a level even higher than we as Americans have ever been privileged to know.

I'm old enough to have witnessed racial segregation. I wondered about the whites only and colored only signs I saw tacked to laundry mats and Dairy Queens. Shushed by my aunt whenever I asked the meaning of those signs.

No matter what you think of politicians the historical significance of Obama securing the Democratic nomination is of huge historical importance. Made that much more poignant by the fact that we're coming up on the anniversary of the Civil Rights Act and Voting rights Acts signed into law forty odd years ago. I believe Obama will except the nomination in Denver 45 years to the day Martin Luther King delivered "I have a dream" in Washington. I'm pretty sure this is what he had in mind.

Well after weighing all the historical data that many previous presidents have ran... from democrat to republican... I think everything no matter whose elected the outcome will be politics as usual... ALOT of PROMISES but, no real change...

Well after weighing all the historical data that many previous presidents have ran... from democrat to republican... I think everything no matter whose elected the outcome will be politics as usual... ALOT of PROMISES but, no real change...

Isn't that how it always goes. A wise person and I had this conversation last night and I can agree that the landscape of American politics needs to be pruned.

I have not been an Obama supporter, and will share this recent email that a friend sent me.

ELECTION 2008Obama promises 'gays' 'strongest possible bill'Tells homosexual mag he's 'more vocal' for them than any candidate in history

I have not made a decision on who I am supporting at this point, I will vote as I always do, my conscience. Enjoy... D

« Last Edit: June 04, 2008, 12:12:17 PM by Florida69 »

Logged

Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race. Calvin Coolidge

Well after weighing all the historical data that many previous presidents have ran... from democrat to republican... I think everything no matter whose elected the outcome will be politics as usual... ALOT of PROMISES but, no real change...

I agree to a point. There are movements that sometimes are sparked by a candidate that continue long after the politics begin.

Obama has sparked something in people that frankly I think is no longer his to claim as it belongs to those who want it to happen.

Actually, reading what I just wrote sort of sums up the problem in my mind with politics and political movements in America (in my view) we want to be inspired by a leader but seem to get angry when they don't follow through, but we never seem to point the finger at ourselves and ask why WE didn't follow through either.

What I see in Obama's campaign (and keep in mind that this is from a Hillary supporter originally) is someone who just may have the potential to light a fire under the populace that will burn independent of him being responsible for maintaining it.

What I see in Obama's campaign (and keep in mind that this is from a Hillary supporter originally) is someone who just may have the potential to light a fire under the populace that will burn independent of him being responsible for maintaining it.

In my mind, this is exactly the role of a leader vs a ruler / dictator. This is exactly what we need, but will it work? So many people shrug off any sort of personal responsibility that if something's not done for them, it doesn't get done. We need a political change, but we also need to realize that we need to be the change we want to see.

Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race. Calvin Coolidge

One has to make that personal decision in the voting station for someone who appears most capable and driven to serve the public good to his/her best ability. Leadership brings much responsibility, and service is typically self-sacrifice. It's also a tenet of the American Way, and a privilege that must be honored, admired, and defended.

I'm happy that Obama elicits much of these qualities, but it must also go with the House, Senate, Governor, and local elections. Change can not come from just one person. It starts with us as Americans, first.

In terms of funding and policy on HIV/AIDS, I'm particularly fond of the change in prevention campaigns that are "science based" instead of "ideology based" (similarly with PEPFAR reauthorization).

This is still a virus/disease that has no cure nor an effective vaccine. Certainly there are tools for effective treatment to sustain life to "normal" or near normal life spans, but it is still a killer of millions of persons across the planet.

Clear, frank, and effective communication on prevention is still paramount in slowing the spread of the virus. The treatments and searches for cures/vaccines will continue, especially with lucrative returns for Big Pharma, although I hope for better accessibility for those of low and moderate means.

We're Americans (well, some of you aren't in here, LOL), so we have the right and duty to vote in every election. I wish and pray that we have the wisdom in choosing the most appropriate candidate.

In response to the question posed, as long as the dumbshits who currently run the house and the senate continue to sit and abuse our system of government, a new president WILL NOT make a difference. But you are entitled to your opinion on that one. I also did not say to ban lawyers, I said limit them.(how to do that would be difficult, but necessary) I also never said to kick out elected officials, I said we need to start fresh (to you that might mean the same thing but I am referring to the voters making a concerted change to eliminate all incumbents in the next election, hey look a SIMPLE solution to a big problem!!).

You do recognize that your argument needs to be made state-by-state, not at a national level? Each state has the independent authority to limit the terms of its members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. No amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be appropriate in this regard.